Asbestos Cases A–Z: M

385 decisions whose name begins with M.

• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. Ronald Dummitt v. AW Chesterton (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and upheld liability for plaintiff Ronald Dummitt. It vacated the $16 million past and $16 million future pain-and-suffering awards unless he accepts a reduction to $5.5 million and $2.5 million.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2020). The First Department upheld the jury's liability verdict against the Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (successor to Felt Products) but ordered a new trial on past pain and suffering and past loss of consortium unless plaintiff agreed to reduce those awards to $5.5 million and $650,000.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Durez Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Kestenbaum, Fernandez, Spina and Wilson asbestos cases for joint trial over the defendants' opposition.
• English v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2024). The First Department reversed the trial court's denial of Colgate-Palmolive's summary judgment motion, granted the motion and dismissed the complaint against Colgate, ruling against the plaintiff executor.
• Seen v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2024). The First Department modified the judgment against Kaiser Gypsum, ordering a new trial on pain and suffering damages unless plaintiff stipulated to reduce the $15 million award to $10 million, remanded to recalculate the judgment for settlement offsets, and otherwise affirmed the verdict for plaintiff.
• Stiglitz v. Homasote Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied Homasote Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, so the plaintiffs (the estate and widow) prevailed on the motion.
• Fletcher v. Clinique Laboratories (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied the Estee Lauder and Clinique defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so plaintiffs Hannah and Duncan Fletcher's New York action continued.
• Montell v. Viking Pump (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court granted Viking Pump, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, severed and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for jurisdictional discovery.
• Yavner v. Fulton Boiler Works (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied Fulton Boiler Works, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, finding fact issues for a jury about when the boiler was installed.
• Macaluso v. A.O. Smith Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2019). The First Department affirmed the jury verdict for plaintiff on liability but ordered a new trial on damages unless plaintiff stipulated to further reduce the awards to $4 million for pain and suffering and $1 million for each child's loss of parental guidance.
• Fischer v. Burnham (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied plaintiff Dona Fischer's motion to vacate and for leave to renew or reargue, leaving in place summary judgment for defendant Burnham (Lord & Burnham).
• Rothlein v. Imerys Talc America (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court granted dismissal of the claims against Cyprus Amax Minerals Company and Cyprus Mineral Co. and of all claims against Imerys for the period before 1979, but denied dismissal of the remaining claims against Imerys, so the plaintiffs kept those claims.
• Alleyne v. Revlon (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The trial court denied Revlon's motion to exclude plaintiff Beverley Alleyne's expert Dr. Longo's May 10, 2019 report, adjourned the trial to October 15, 2019 so defendants could test the talc samples, and precluded any later Longo reports on Revlon's Charlie powder.
• Brown v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2019). The Appellate Division reversed the judgment that capped Con Ed's share at 30% and directed an amended judgment apportioning 65% of plaintiff's total recovery against Con Ed, so plaintiff won and Con Ed lost; Con Ed's cross appeal from the denial of summary judgment was dismissed.
• Juni v. Ford Motor Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Court of Appeals, 2018). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, leaving in place the setting aside of the jury verdict against Ford Motor Company, so plaintiff Mary Juni lost and Ford won judgment as a matter of law.
• Garrido v. Johnson & Johnson (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The trial court denied Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. summary judgment on the negligence, strict liability, implied warranty and punitive damages claims, but granted it on the express warranty, fraud/conspiracy and several other causes of action, most of which plaintiffs did not oppose.
• Niemeyer v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of warranty, fraud, civil conspiracy and withdrawn premises, Labor Law, contractor and dust mask claims, while allowing the amended complaint to stand as filed without leave of court.
• Montanez v. Beck/Arnley Worldparts (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court granted Beck/Arnley Worldparts, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, because plaintiffs failed to show continuity of ownership needed for successor liability.
• Krok v. The Nash Engineering Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the trial court's denial of Nash Engineering Company's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff estate's claim against Nash continued.
• Hackshaw v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2016). The First Department affirmed the jury verdict for plaintiff Dorcas Hackshaw (executrix of Selwyn Hackshaw) against Crane Co. on liability, but found the award for past pain and suffering excessive and reduced it to the extent indicated (the figure is not in the text).
• Sweberg v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2016). The First Department reversed the order on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint on that claim. It also upheld the jury's verdict against Crane Co. on failure to warn and recklessness, but found the future pain and suffering award materially excessive to an extent the text does not state.
• Moore v. AERCO Int'l (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate nine asbestos actions into three groups for joint trial, over the defendants' objections.
• DiSalvo v. Neles-Jamesbury (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2014). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., holding it had not met its initial burden, so plaintiff Carl DiSalvo prevailed on the appeal.
• Dietrich v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate in part, ordering joint trials of the three lung cancer plaintiffs, of a group of mesothelioma plaintiffs, and of a separate group of Dietrich, McDonald and Yetter, rather than the two groups plaintiffs requested.
• Ambruso v. Goulds Pumps (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate 15 asbestos cases into four joint-trial groups (Navy, Construction, Automotive, Building Maintenance) over the defendants' opposition.
• Croteau v. Treadwell Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2007). The Appellate Division affirmed the order granting Con Edison contractual indemnification against Treadwell for sums paid to Croteau, rejecting Treadwell's arguments.
• Held v. Sequoia Ventures (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2007). The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling in favor of Sequoia Ventures (formerly Bechtel), rejecting the plaintiff executrix's claim that the engineer's insulation specifications caused her husband's mesothelioma.
• Dankenbrink v. Foster Wheeler (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2006). The court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate: it ordered joint trials of Dankenbrink, Gualdoni, Singer and Levine, and of Cettina and Goldstein. It tried Decibus and Rosato separately, severed Pieper and Eichner because maritime law is implicated, and denied the plaintiffs' request for reverse bifurcation, as the defendants had urged.
• Ak v. Aqua-Chem (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2005). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate eight asbestos personal injury and wrongful death actions for a joint trial, over the objections of defendants Kentile, Keyspan and Burnham.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation v. AW Chesterton Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a joint trial only for Carlucci, Krekora and Lightsy, and ordered the Fishbein, Frieder, Perez and Ryan cases tried separately.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2013). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order consolidating the three plaintiffs' cases for trial, rejecting Volkswagen Group of America's challenge to consolidation.
• Ronsini v. Worthington Corp. (Matter Of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Elaine Ronsini V. Garlock, Inc.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 1998). The Appellate Division rejected the challenges by Worthington Corporation and John Crane, Inc. to the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs, and declined to disturb the liability findings, the apportionments or the damages awards as reduced by the trial court.
• Lanza v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (Matter of Nyc Asbestos Litig) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a joint trial of the Lanza and Kranichfeld actions against Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., over the defendant's objection.
• Holdampf v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Matter of Nyc Asbestos Litig) (New York Court of Appeals, 2005). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstated Supreme Court's summary judgment for the Port Authority, and held the Port Authority owed no duty of care to the wife of its employee, so the Holdampfs lost.
• Tedrick v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of Nyc Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2011). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive's in limine motion to apply Oregon's $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages, ruling against the estate plaintiffs who wanted New York law with no cap.
• Matter of O'malley v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2003). The Appellate Division reversed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision disallowing the widow's death benefits claim against Consolidated Edison and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings.
• Matter of Reid v. National Grid (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2023). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision setting the decedent's date of disablement at his date of death, March 2, 2019, against the employer and carrier, who appealed, so the claimant's widow's death benefits stood.
• Matter of Schwartz v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court granted non-party CertainTeed's motion, unopposed, only to the extent of quashing Duro Dyne's trial subpoena for a corporate witness, denied the rest, and let Duro Dyne use CertainTeed's interrogatory answers and deposition testimony under the case management order.
• Ballard v. Armstrong World Indus. (Matter of Seventh Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Monroe, 2002). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Ballard and Cooros cases for trial, denied consolidation of the two deceased workers' claims with the living plaintiffs in Duemmel/Keller, severed Pschirrer's claim from Duemmel and allowed it to be consolidated with Keller, largely favoring the objecting defendants.
• Matter of Smith v. Certain Teed Prods. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 1981). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision disallowing the widow's disability and death claims against Certain Teed Products Corp. as barred by section 40, so the claimant lost.
• Matter of Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Dept., 1980). The Appellate Division modified the order and dismissed the complaint, holding the negligence and strict products liability claims time barred, so the defendants (Johns-Manville and others) prevailed over the executrix.
• Matter of Steinhardt v. JohnsManville Corp. (New York Court of Appeals, 1981). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division orders, so the asbestos manufacturers and suppliers won and the plaintiffs' claims stayed barred by the statute of limitations.
• Matter of Unr Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1994). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to disturb UNR's substantially consummated reorganization plan, rejecting the Bloomington factory workers' challenge, though it disagreed that the case was moot.
• Matthews v. EI DU Pont DE Nemours and Company (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 2018). The court granted DuPont's renewed motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the claims of Kimberly Matthews, on behalf of herself and the estate of Jerry Matthews, because workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy.
• Mauro v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (New Jersey Supreme Court, 1989). The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Roger Mauro, holding that the trial court properly kept his enhanced-risk-of-cancer damages claim from the jury and properly limited his expert's testimony, so the defendants prevailed on those issues.
• Mavroudis v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the Mavroudis plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. and affirmed the trial court's finding that the pretrial settlements were reasonable.
• Maxwell v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Parsons Government Services and Brand Insulations, holding the construction statute of repose barred the Browns' claims.
• May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2015). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the Court of Special Appeals' affirmance of summary judgment for the pump manufacturers (Air & Liquid Systems, Warren Pumps, IMO Industries) and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for Ruth May.
• May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2014). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the pump manufacturers Air & Liquid Systems, Warren Pumps and IMO Industries, and against Philip May and his wife.
• Mayeaux v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The federal district court granted George Mayeaux's motion to remand and sent the case back to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, rejecting Avondale/Huntington Ingalls and OneBeacon's federal officer removal.